[5] In 1990, the first SVP law was established in the state of Washington, following two high-profile sexual assaults and murders by Earl Kenneth Shriner and Gene Kane.
[6] In response to the attacks, Helen Harlow—the mother of Earl Shriner's victim—formed a group known as The Tennis Shoe Brigade in order to pressure the state government to change the laws related to sex offenders.
While the Task Force deliberated, serial killer Westley Allan Dodd kidnapped, raped, and murdered three young boys in Vancouver, Washington, for which he was executed by hanging.
In order for the imprisoning of these individuals, without new crimes having been committed, the U.S. Supreme court indicated that states must be able to make a distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be "civilly" detained, as this later class (unlike the former) is made up of individuals who suffered from "mental abnormalities" which caused them to have "serious difficulty in controlling behavior", thus making them distinguishable "from the dangerous but typical recidivist" that must be released (Kansas v. Crane (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413).
[2] The Federal Government established its sex offender commitment process when it passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Upon such a determination, the inmate would be subject to involuntary commitment at a medical facility until such time as his mental abnormality had changed and it was safe to release him.
The court would then be required to conduct an annual review of the determination, and the inmate would always be allowed to petition for freedom under the same standards.
In a following case, the United States Supreme Court clarified that the government must demonstrate that the inmate has at least a serious lack of ability to control his behavior.
at pages 362–363) The High Court was confident that "the confinement's duration [was] linked to the stated purposed of the commitment, namely, to hold the person until his mental abnormality no longer causes him to be a threat to others."
at pages 363) The distinction, between (i) the class of sex offenders who must be released after having completed their prison sentences and (ii) those who could be "civilly" detained, was believed to have been that the later class was made up of individuals who suffered from mental abnormalities which caused them to have "serious difficulty in controlling behavior", thus making them distinguishable "from the dangerous but typical recidivist" that must be released.
(Kansas v. Crane (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 413) In both Hendricks and Crane the state was given deferential preference in asserting its factual findings regarding this so-called "sexually violent predator" class which it claimed was identifiable and distinguishable, as noted above, from recidivists who may be dangerous, but who were not subject to severe volitional impairment problems caused as a result of their mental abnormality.